Printable View
Patrick Ribbsaeter (L) and Avi Siwa hold a banner encouraging the closure of all zoos at a studio in Bangkok on Friday. This upcoming advertisement, promoted by the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)will be releseed early next year in the Philippines, India, Sweden and Thailand, to encourage the ethical treatment of animals in zoos.//Photo by Tatchadon Panyaphanitkul
the nation
yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtydog
"A nation can be judged by how it treats its animals." --Mahatma Gandhi.
No. The main work of zoos like San Francisco and Bristol zoos is conservation.
There have been cases where animals reintroduced to the wild from zoos have stopped species going extinct.
Wel generally BBQued is best, isn't Mr Ghandi from India where they have the Caste system?Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
Most animals just want something to eat and a place to live where there are no enemies. A zoo is therefore a perfect habitat for most animals.
well most zoos in asia are a complete disgrace and shameful.
but many new zoos in the west are actually quite decent and also educational - and therefore can assist conservation efforts.
PETA Media Center > FactsheetsQuote:
Zoos vary in size and quality—from drive-through parks to small roadside menageries with concrete slabs and iron bars. Although more than 135 million people visit zoos in the United States and Canada every year, most zoos operate at a loss and must find ways to cut costs or add gimmicks that will attract visitors.(2) The Wall Street Journal reported that “nearly half of the country’s zoos are facing cutbacks this year … [a]ttendance, meanwhile, is down about 3% nationwide.”(3)
Ultimately, animals are the ones who pay the price. Precious funds that should be used to provide more humane conditions for animals are often squandered on cosmetic improvements, such as landscaping or visitor centers, in order to draw visitors.
Animals suffer from more than neglect in some zoos. Rose-Tu, an elephant at the Oregon Zoo, suffered “176 gashes and cuts” inflicted by a zoo handler wielding a sharp metal rod.(4) Another elephant, Sissy, was beaten with an ax handle at the El Paso Zoo.(5)
snip
An Oxford University study based on four decades of observing animals in captivity and in the wild found that animals such as polar bears, lions, tigers, and cheetahs “show the most evidence of stress and/or psychological dysfunction in captivity” and concluded that “the keeping of naturally wide-ranging carnivores should be either fundamentally improved or phased out.”(6,7)
snip
Zoo babies are crowd-pleasers, but when they get older and attract fewer visitors, many are sold or killed by zoos. Deer, tigers, lions, and other animals who breed frequently are sometimes sold to “game” farms where hunters pay for the “privilege” of killing them; others are killed for their meat and/or hides. Other “surplus” animals may be sold to circuses or smaller, more poorly run zoos.
A chimpanzee named Edith is one example of a discarded zoo baby who fell into the wrong hands. Born in the 1960s at the Saint Louis Zoo, baby Edith was surely an adorable sight for visitors. But just after her third birthday, she was taken from her family and passed around to at least five different facilities, finally landing at a Texas roadside zoo called the Amarillo Wildlife Refuge (AWR)
Why not put ex Nam' Pattaya types in cages and charge 20 baht a gander.
i think you will find most animals in normal countries the animals in zoos are better treated than prisoners, ie more room, better facilities and better food, so these animals dont get it so bad no matter how much they whinge :)
Don;t close 'em. BBQ some OK but we need a supply oif fresh meat!
Closing zoos is a silly idea. AS SB pointed out, the work done there is important for the survival of many species.
The world is rapidly shrinking and wild habitats with it. There may be a day when the wildest animals left on the planet are in Zoos. Closing zoos as some sort of protection of them is both counter-productive and a juvenile idea.
sorry you lost me here ! PETA fact sheet as a source ?Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
naaah!
might be some sembilence of truth in it - but they are completely mental and pychopathic liars!
and here's me thinking Singapore was in Asia...Quote:
Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtb
your opinion of peta seems pretty blanced. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtbsorry you lost me here ! PETA fact sheet as a source ?Quote:
Originally Posted by raycarey
naaah!
might be some sembilence of truth in it - but they are completely mental and pychopathic liars!
fyi....i don't speak for peta, and peta doesn't speak for me.
sources are incuded in the link....make up your own mind.
fair call - i did forget that zoo - bloody good un,Quote:
Originally Posted by klongmaster
tho i did say most ......
Ok close to here we have the tiger zoo, the tigers die and they sell the bodies onto the Chinese, that keeps the Chinese in Tiger Testicle Stew or whatever bits of the Tiger they might eat, so thats a win win situation, although when bird flu started they had over 100 tigers die in a day and nobody could ever find their bodies, but that could be just bad mismanagement and forgetfullness on where they buried them, nope I am sorry I don't believe that, they just took advantage of the situation and sold them on, but, they do breed a hell of a lot of tigers there, take them away from the parents at a couple of months to get the mommas breeding again, normally tigers will nurse their young for 18 months, if the cub goes then they are back to breeding again, Ok I agree Thailand shouldn't have zoos :)
Yep, zoos are more than just for tossing nuts to monkeys, and they do contribute not only to conservation of threatened species but also to our knowledge and understanding of the animal world, which often results in practical benefits to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Ninja
But the survival of animals in the wild calls for more than food and safety; they need to work for their food, rather than have access to as much as they want on demand, and they also need to learn about fear even if there are no predators. In fact, once they get what it is one imagines they regard as a perfect environment of safety and plentiful food, that is when they come under the threat of extinction.
We lost the dodo precisely because it was safe in isolation, with easy berry and fruit pickings at ground level and no predators, so they had no need to fly and over time were stripped of the ablity to do so, leaving them unable to escape or hide or defend themselves against the Portugese that arrived to wipe them out.
A similar complacency may well turn around to bite Western civilisation in the ass.
Naaa, we got the yankie scare mongers out there to make sure that don't ever happen :)Quote:
Originally Posted by keda
Never liked the traditional zoos of old: small cages and little privacy for the critters. I think wildlife parks, like the one outside San Diego, is the best compromise if zoos are necessary at all.
I think zoos are necessary in Asia, when i goto my land where my staff live which is near what could be called jungle all I see is traps, from fish to birds, basically they will hunt the animals till they get no more, they reckon they have eaten all the squirrels there so far and the bird population is declining rapidly, well perhaps rapidly isn't the right word, normally i would see about 40 or more birds on my land, cant remember seeing any in the last few months :(
^ Look on the bright side, the staff will either have to start eating each other soon, or they'll starve too. :)
One of the things zoos do is keep records of animal's DNA which they share with other zoos. This enables them to breed animals and maintain optimum diversity in the DNA. Genetic defects brought on from inbreeding animals takes those animal's DNA out of the breeding program leaving zoos with less animals to maintain diversity with.
You missed out the option I wanted to vote for, DD.
Close all bad zoos.
The California Condor is an example. Proper zoos do have a major role in the scheme of all living things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Burr
I didn't vote because there was not a 'pick' that met my opinions. Zoos make money off of visitors, and there awe of it all, to help provide for keeping the animals. In the past, zoos were museums of living creatures. That has changed, and now they are breeding grounds to try and preserve species going extinct. That cannot necessarily be equivocated to being beneficial to the animal. What it could do is benefit the whole ecological system by keeping the balance of flora/fauna in this disintegrating world.
I am not satisfied that I made as complete a comment as I would have liked. Please tolerate my following remonstration to illustrate the worth of today's zoos.
For the most part, zoos of today have taken on a new look. This is due to a new philosophy - work being done in "new zoos" can help wild animal populations survive and thrive. In the past, zoo residents were once captured from the wild, but today's captive breeding programs are helping to replenish wild populations. Animals in zoos are helping scientists learn how to protect many wild animals, whose habitat has been shrinking to the brink of being uninhabitable.
The roots of zoos extend to ancient Egypt, where wild animals were caged and then worshiped. Later, collections of exotic animals became symbols of power and wealth, and rulers competed to acquire the greatest number of species for their private menageries. Eventually, the menageries moved beyond the courtyards and into urban centers. The word zoo was coined as an abbreviation for London's zoological garden, where the objective was science rather than just an exhibition. Despite the intentions of the founder Sir Stamford Raffles, zoos persisted as popular places for entertainment, and before long there was one in almost every port.
Most of the first zoos were typically collections of whatever could be procured, in which single animals were housed side by side in metal cages. In the early 1900s in Germany, a new idea that would eventually revolutionize the look of future zoos throughout the world, took hold. Carl Hagenbeck, a well-known animal supplier, opened the world's first zoo without bars. In place of steel, Hagenbeck used moats, shrubbery, artificial rocks, and walkways to provide visitors, - and animals - with a more natural experience.
During this era, the New York Zoological Society became the Wildlife Conservation Society. Besides conducting research, they spearheaded efforts to restore the nearly extinct American bison to the western plains. As the environmental movement gained speed, the preservation of wildlife and wilderness moved outside of zoo walls. As funds became available, zoos collectively contributed millions toward land purchases to prevent habitat destruction.
Don't get me wrong, not all zoos are good zoos. There still are animals pacing in metal cages, and cramped in outdoor enclosures. Even some of the best zoos still take animals from the wild, although captive breeding continues to reduce this number. And, no matter how you look at it, a wild animal in a zoo equals one less animal in the wild. But, zoos are charged with the responsibility of balancing the costs and benefits between education and conservation. It is true that some are simply not up to the task. Luckily, the zoological community, as a whole, is moving forward to reduce habitat destruction and pursue reintroduction of indigenous species, if possible.
The zoo needs to struggle between being a place of entertainment, and a conservational facility. It needs visitors to enter and pay fees to fund its operation. At times, this effort can become too commercial. They need to provide 'animal shows' to bring in extra funds. If they are purely educational, I support them. But unfortunately, things like kangaroo boxing, certain elephant training attractions, chained monkey exhibitions and (horrid) reptile sensationalism make me cringe.
In America alone, more than 180 million people go through zoo facilities every year. To obtain the funding needed to survive, zoos need to be creative, since most people go to the zoo to have fun, and not to be educated. To motivate people to get involved with conservation, they need a positive experience with nature and animals. Environmentalists tend to have a negative reaction to zoos, because they envision animals in the wild, and not in captivity. Zoos can be a powerful persuasion for conservation, by reaching into communities that no one else has reached, and provide an emotional connection to wildlife.
Lately, zoos have been specializing in only the species they do well with by their unique facilities and successful breeding program. Single animals are farmed out to other zoos on a "breeding loan', in hopes that new blood will strengthen the captive population, to eventually allow its reentry to the wild. So, instead of having as many specimens as possible for the purpose of display, the zoological community is attempting to specialize in what they do best as individuals. Just for you Brits who may not agree with me, have you ever visited the late John Aspinall's Howletts Wild Animal Park, in Canterbury? I had the privilege of not only meeting him, but his troops of gorillas.
Whether it is saving the Rock Hydrax (precursor of the common horse), or breeding the Madagascan Lemur (both of which I've personally been involved), zoos have turned the corner to help preserve the critical flora/fauna balance that took thousands of years to evolve, and now are being destroyed in a decade.
Yeah, zoos do have their place, but I can't help but feel sorry for the animals in some places, national parks and conservation areas are better options IMO.
I voted for BBQ them all.
And after that, sell the real estate of the zoo to the highest bidder.
Isn't anyone going to comment on the hot chick in the photo?! I say, put her in a cage so that I can feed her!
I like zoos, they are very nice indeed. Ok not the bad ones where the animals are standing in their own shit
I hope the Chiang Mai zoo is good, I am taking the wife there next week. She has never been to a zoo, so has never seen a giraffe
or lots of other thingies
Oh dear. The only good bit is the Pandas. The rest is miserable animals standing around in their own shit. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by DrAndy
I went there one time and if you want to see the definition of 'stir crazy', go check out the monkeys. It's pretty sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by benbaaa
I was going to, but then you beat me to it. :iagree::thrashi:Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyZ
Apparently she is Filipina. Here she is again:
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
Think she's trying to hit on Propagator. Shame.
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
a few years ago i went to that sriracha tiger zoo. didn't really think much of it.
one bizarre thing was that there were africans in tribal clothes in the cages with some of the younger tigers.
you would have thought that they would realise that there are no tigers in africa.
anyone been there recently and confirm whether they still put africans in with the tigers?
Only for lunch, the tigers need a variety in their diet.Quote:
Originally Posted by slimboyfat